Questions that shape a sport-psychology philosophy:
*Does how a sports official calls rules' infractions/ illegal plays, depend on
contexts?
*Does the standard of competition, as
a pre-context, serve as a judgment heuristic (psychological indicator)?
Does the standard affect the calls as far as play-calling strictness?
*Will higher levels of competition
create an atmosphere of more leniency based on the kind of play athletes display?
How does the level of competition affect the
role of the referee, in general?
*Is the officials' duty to maintain a
sporting discipline?
Would this mean to provide strong penalty enforcement?
Is this the
onus of all referee action during competitions?
*Is ambiguity of player-actions an excuse for, a reason for, or the primary consequence of how a referee correctly interprets fouls?
Or, does the ease of assessments of player-actions have a bearing on how the referee manages the fair and natural flow of game
progression?
*How does the external validity of penalties and/or the need to explain rules' interpretation to players and coaches affect play calls?
*How do behaviorally anchored performance
categories and performance
competencies keep the competitive aspect of sport wholesome -- so both the letter and
spirit of the rules are satisfied in an impartial manner concerning both sides?